Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment between Kishan Patel (and his company TechSpirer Inc.) and ITCAD Tech Inc. regarding unpaid invoices and the enforceability of a non-competition clause in a consulting agreement.

The court found that TechSpirer Inc. was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that the non-competition clause was valid and enforceable.

Damages were awarded to both parties, with the plaintiffs receiving unpaid invoices and punitive damages, and the defendant receiving partial damages for breach of the non-compete.

The court also addressed issues of frustration, repudiation, and costs.

The plaintiff sued its former lawyer's estate and professional corporation for negligence and breach of contract after the lawyer allowed a construction lien to expire by failing to set the action down for trial within two years.

The defendants conceded the breach of the standard of care but disputed causation and damages, arguing the plaintiff failed to mitigate by not enforcing a related judgment and that the property lacked sufficient equity.

The court found the plaintiff did not act unreasonably in relying on the lawyer's advice that the lien was valid.

Assessing the complex evidence on the contaminated property's retrospective value, the court determined there was equity in the property and fixed damages at $472,000.

The applicants sought to remove the sole arbitrator in a complex construction arbitration, alleging his extensive questioning of witnesses created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found it had jurisdiction to hear the application under the Arbitration Act, 1991, and that the application was not out of time.

However, the court dismissed the application on the merits, finding that the arbitrator's interventions were a legitimate exercise of his truth-seeking function and subject matter expertise, and did not demonstrate bias or pre-judgment.

This decision concerns the costs awarded following a successful motion by Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and being frivolous/vexatious.

The court fixed costs at $25,603.51, payable by the plaintiff to Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. delayed in bringing the motion and that the plaintiff's impecuniosity warranted a significant reduction in costs.

The court applied Rule 49.10, awarding Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. partial indemnity costs up to its offer to settle date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, finding its "walk-away" offer to be a valid compromise in the context of a motion to strike.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant's representative to answer a refused question from an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved allegations of negligent repair of an ATV.

The refused question asked the representative to agree that if the threads on the axle were intact, the only way the tire could come off was if the cotter pin was missing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the question improperly sought an expert opinion on a hypothetical matter from a layperson.

Following a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery, both parties sought costs.

The defendants had breached a consent timetable order by failing to answer undertakings for over 17 months, only providing answers in their responding materials.

The Master awarded the plaintiff $2,000 in costs, noting the motion was necessary to compel the undertakings and the defendants provided no satisfactory explanation for their delay.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant pharmacy for defaulting on an equipment lease for a telemedicine studio.

The defendant argued the lease was unenforceable due to a unilateral mistake, claiming it believed it was contracting solely with the telemedicine service provider, who allegedly perpetrated a fraud.

The third-party lease broker also moved for summary judgment to dismiss the defendant's claim against it.

The court granted both motions, finding the lease enforceable as the defendant accepted the equipment and made payments, and there was no evidence the plaintiff or the broker participated in or knew of the alleged fraud.

Following the dismissal of Multiplex's motions for a sealing order and pleading amendments, and the granting of its motion to examine a non-party under Rule 31.10, the court determined the costs of the motions.

The court awarded PGH $11,000 in partial indemnity costs for the dismissed motions, finding Multiplex's conduct was not reprehensible or wholly devoid of merit to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court deferred the costs of the successful Rule 31.10 motion, ruling that the non-party's costs would be determined if he seeks reimbursement, and PGH's liability for Multiplex's costs would be determined in the cause of the underlying fraud allegations.

The applicant sought adjustments to retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, interim disbursements, security for costs, and a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking dismissal of the applicant's motion, termination of child support due to alleged repudiation, and other relief.

The court varied temporary child and spousal support orders based on updated income information, dismissed claims for interim disbursements and security for costs due to insufficient evidence, and denied the Certificate of Pending Litigation due to procedural deficiencies and its inappropriate use for securing support.

The court also ordered the parties to amend their pleadings to reflect the actual issues being litigated and to facilitate disclosure.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add a snow removal contractor as a defendant in a slip and fall action, after the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiffs relied on the doctrine of discoverability, arguing they only learned of the contractor's involvement upon receiving the statement of defence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence to identify the contractor within the limitation period, as they failed to make any inquiries about snow removal services.

The defendants appealed a Master's order that granted the plaintiff leave to file additional evidence and conduct further examinations under Rule 39.02(2) and 39.03, pending the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved claims against a deceased's estate, requiring corroborating evidence under s. 13 of the Evidence Act.

The Master found that the need for corroboration became apparent after cross-examinations and applied a contextual approach, limiting the additional evidence and allowing the defendants to respond.

The Superior Court upheld the Master's decision, finding no error in principle or misapprehension of the test under *First Capital Realty Inc. v. Centrecorp Management Services Ltd*.

The court emphasized deference to the Master's expertise in discovery matters and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the plaintiff.

Following the release of trial reasons finding the defendant breached its contract but awarding no damages, the plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to amend the reasons.

The plaintiffs sought nominal damages, special damages, damages for the purchase of new shares, and damages for loss of chance.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that nominal damages were inappropriate where general damages were unproven, special damages lacked causal link, and the other claims were either already disposed of or not raised at trial.

This case conference addressed the scheduling of Carillion Construction Inc.'s motion for further productions against the City of Toronto and NORR Limited in a complex multi-party construction litigation concerning Toronto's Union Station project.

Carillion sought various production orders and a discovery completion deadline prior to a scheduled mediation.

The City and NORR argued for delaying the motion until after mediation, citing the volume of existing documents and the laborious process of retrieving new ones.

The court determined that Carillion's motion should proceed prior to mediation, finding no cogent reason to delay the argument, but indicated that the actual production of documents, if ordered, could potentially be deferred until after the mediation.

The court urged counsel to schedule the motion.

The defendants' motion for security for costs was returned to the Master after a successful appeal.

The appeal judge found the Master erred by failing to consider the quality of the plaintiff's only asset, a $100,000 cash deposit held by the defendants, which could easily be transferred out of Ontario once returned.

The Master ordered the defendants to return the deposit (less a $5,000 holdback) and ordered the plaintiff to immediately post $65,000 as security for costs, noting the plaintiff was a shell corporation and the cash would likely be transferred to its parent company.

The defendant employee brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employer's action for alleged theft.

The employer's principal had previously been convicted of attempting to extort the employee based on these same theft allegations.

The court found there was no admissible evidence of any theft occurring at the plaintiff's premises, let alone by the defendant.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the claim against the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to substitute two corporate defendants after discovering that the originally named defendant corporation never existed.

The proposed substitutions were sought on the basis of misnomer under Rules 5.04(2) and 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the circumstances constituted misnomer because the litigation was clearly directed at corporations controlled by the same principal, and a reasonable reader would understand that the claim was intended for those entities.

The court further found no non‑compensable prejudice, as the proposed defendants had knowledge of the claim and had effectively defended the action from the outset.

Leave to amend and substitute the proper corporate defendants was granted, and the substituted defendants were ordered to satisfy a prior interlocutory costs order.

The representative plaintiff in a certified securities class action sought court approval of a settlement, class counsel fees, and a modest honorarium under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The proposed settlement required the defendants’ insurers to pay $2.25 million for distribution to class members alleging misrepresentations affecting publicly traded shares.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class after considering the likelihood of success, litigation risks, and the absence of objections.

However, the court declined to approve the proposed cy près recipient because of connections between class counsel and the proposed organization, concluding that such links created an inappropriate indirect benefit to counsel.

The settlement and counsel fees were approved subject to the parties proposing a different cy près recipient.

Following a successful insurance coverage application concerning a duty to defend a personal injury action under a CGL policy, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicants sought 75% of their full indemnity costs, while the respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to a prior settlement offer proposing payment of 50% of costs.

The court rejected the respondent’s position and confirmed that the applicants, as the successful party, were entitled to costs.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the usual partial indemnity approach under Rule 58, the court assessed costs at $4,500 payable by the respondent.

The plaintiffs sought damages following a slip and fall in the lobby of a hotel property that resulted in a knee injury.

Liability proceeded by default as the defendant did not appear, and the court conducted an assessment of damages.

The court accepted that the plaintiff continued to experience knee pain and reduced mobility but found the evidentiary record lacked sufficient expert medical evidence establishing causation, diagnosis, or long-term prognosis.

The court concluded the injury likely represented an aggravation of a pre-existing condition and awarded modest general damages along with limited damages under the Family Law Act and special damages.

Costs were reduced in light of the modest recovery and the fact the claim fell within the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction.

At a Rule 48.14 status hearing, the plaintiff was required to show cause why a civil action alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence arising from real estate transactions should not be dismissed for delay.

The court reviewed the procedural history and found that the plaintiff had taken minimal steps to advance the action over several years, failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay, and had not diligently pursued service, pleadings, or discovery.

The court further held that the deaths of two key defendants created significant non-compensable prejudice because their evidence regarding the disputed transactions could no longer be obtained.

Applying the principles in Savundranayagam v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada and related authorities, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to satisfy both branches of the test required to avoid dismissal.

The action was therefore dismissed for delay.